Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap between the Intel Core 7 250H and the Intel Core 7 360, with the 250H securing 14 wins across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the 250H scores 99,100 against 34,238 for the 360, a delta of 189.4%. This result aligns with the 250H's configuration of 14 cores and 20 threads versus the 360's 6 cores and 6 threads, though the single-core results tell a more nuanced story.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 250H posts 16,561 points compared to the 360's 13,634, a 21.5% advantage. The R20 multicore test shows a larger gap: 9,697 versus 5,726, representing a 69.4% delta. The R15 multicore test amplifies the difference further, with the 250H at 3,147 and the 360 at 1,374, a 129% margin. These scaling results suggest that the 250H's additional cores and threads translate into increasingly large advantages as the workload becomes more parallel.

Single-core performance narrows the gap considerably. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 250H scores 1,931 while the 360 scores 1,924, a marginal 0.4% difference. The PassMark single-thread test actually favors the 360, which scores 4,274 against the 250H's 4,148, a 2.9% win for the smaller chip. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 54.4% advantage for the 250H (298 versus 193), while R20 single-core shows a 69.3% advantage (1,368 versus 808). This inconsistency across single-thread tests indicates that the 360's higher per-core efficiency, likely tied to its newer 3 nm process, does not fully offset the 250H's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

The PassMark suite shows broad dominance for the 250H in most workloads. Data compression scores 303,269 versus 142,877, a 112.3% delta. Random string sorting shows a 93.6% gap at 34,136 versus 17,636. Multithread performance lands at 27,030 versus 15,544, a 73.9% margin. Floating point math favors the 250H at 65,094 versus 44,963, a 44.8% delta. Extended instructions show a 39.8% gap (17,318 versus 12,390), and data encryption shows a 63.1% difference (18,206 versus 11,164). The 250H also wins physics at 1,824 versus 1,213, a 50.4% margin.

The 360 claims exactly two unique wins in the head-to-head set: PassMark find prime numbers at 120 versus 106, an 11.7% advantage, and the single-thread tests at 4,274 versus 4,148, a 2.9% advantage. These wins point to specific strengths in integer-heavy scalar work and lightweight single-thread execution, but they remain isolated against the 250H's broad multicore lead.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall hierarchy. The 250H records an average benchmark score of 35,728, placing it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The 360 records 18,374, at the 72nd percentile. The 250H sits within a tight cluster of rivals: the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 at 35,719 (0% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H at 35,670 (0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5845 at 35,802 (-0.2% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X at 35,909 (-0.5% delta). The 360, by contrast, aligns with a lower-performance class: the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18,380 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345 (0.2% delta), the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318 (0.3% delta), and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18,302 (0.4% delta).

Where Each One Wins

The 250H dominates heavily threaded workloads that scale with core count. Rendering tasks, as represented by the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, all favor the 250H by margins ranging from 21.5% to 129%. Compression workloads, measured by PassMark data compression, show a 112.3% advantage, indicating strong performance in archiving, backup, and file transfer scenarios. Encryption tasks, with a 63.1% gap, and random string sorting, with a 93.6% gap, both favor the 250H, suggesting broad strength in data processing pipelines that use multiple threads.

The 250H also wins in floating point math by 44.8%, integer math by 189.4%, extended instructions by 39.8%, and physics by 50.4%. These results indicate that the 250H is the stronger choice for simulation, scientific computation, and any workload that can distribute work across its 14 cores and 20 threads. The PassMark multithread score of 27,030 versus 15,544 confirms this pattern.

The 360 wins in two narrow areas. The PassMark find prime numbers test, with a score of 120 versus 106, suggests a per-core efficiency advantage in scalar integer loops that do not benefit from additional cores. The PassMark single-thread score of 4,274 versus 4,148, a 2.9% margin, indicates that the 360 can execute lightly threaded tasks slightly faster despite a lower boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. This likely stems from the 360's newer 3 nm process node and its larger per-core L2 cache of 2.5 MB versus 2 MB, though the 360 has far fewer cores to leverage.

In Cinebench R23 single-core, the two chips are nearly identical at 1,931 versus 1,924, a 0.4% delta favoring the 250H. This near-tie suggests that for everyday single-threaded responsiveness, the two processors are functionally equivalent, with the 360's slight PassMark edge being offset by the 250H's higher boost clock in other tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design families. The 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-H codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. The 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process, also at Intel's foundry, and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. The 3 nm node gives the 360 a significant transistor density advantage, which helps explain its higher per-core efficiency despite fewer resources.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The 250H provides 14 cores and 20 threads, while the 360 provides 6 cores and 6 threads. The 250H therefore supports simultaneous multithreading, while the 360 does not. This difference is the primary driver of the multicore benchmark gaps.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The 250H uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The 360 uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3. While the 360 has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, its total L3 is a quarter of the 250H's, which limits its ability to share data across cores in multi-threaded workloads.

Clock speeds favor the 250H on paper. The 250H has a 2.50 GHz base clock and a 5.40 GHz boost clock. The 360 has a 1.50 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The 360's lower base clock reflects its 15 W TDP, compared to the 250H's 45 W TDP. This power envelope difference explains why the 360 can sustain far fewer active cores and why its multicore scores trail so significantly.

Memory support adds another layer of separation. The 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. The 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The database does not list a memory bandwidth figure for the 250H, but the dual-channel configuration implies a wider path to memory. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The 250H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the 360 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The 250H's newer PCIe generation and additional lanes give it an advantage for discrete storage and expansion, though the 360's lower power budget may suit thinner mobile designs.

Integrated graphics differ by generation and execution unit count. The 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while the 360 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units. The database does not provide graphics benchmark scores, so direct comparison is limited to configuration details.

Sockets also diverge. The 250H uses Intel BGA 1744, while the 360 uses Intel BGA 1516. These are not interchangeable platforms, meaning system-level decisions must account for the motherboard and chassis compatibility.

The 250H carries a launch MSRP of $502. The 360 carries a launch MSRP of $426. Both processors are listed as Active in production status. The 250H was released on 2024-12-17, while the 360 has a release date of 2026-04-15. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows the Intel Core 7 250H as the clearly superior processor for multi-threaded workloads. Its 14 cores and 20 threads deliver a 21.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore, a 69.4% lead in R20 multicore, and a 129% lead in R15 multicore. The PassMark multithread score of 27,030 versus 15,544, a 73.9% gap, confirms that the 250H is the right choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that can occupy more than six threads.

The 360 is competitive only in narrow single-threaded scenarios. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,274 beats the 250H's 4,148 by 2.9%, and its find prime numbers score of 120 beats 106 by 11.7%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the two are effectively tied at 1,931 versus 1,924. For users whose workload is strictly single-threaded and cannot scale, the 360 offers a modest efficiency advantage at a 15 W TDP, which suits fanless or ultra-portable designs.

The 250H's 85th percentile standing among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 35,728, places it in the same performance class as the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350, the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X. The 360's 72nd percentile and average score of 18,374 place it alongside desktop Core i3 parts and the Intel Core 5 330. The performance gap between the two chips is therefore not marginal; it is a full performance class apart.

The 250H also offers platform advantages: dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes, and a larger 24 MB L3 cache. The 360 counters with a smaller 15 W power envelope, a newer 3 nm process, and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The choice between them depends on whether the workload is parallel-heavy, favoring the 250H, or highly scalar and power-constrained, favoring the 360.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the 250H scores 99,100 versus 34,238 for the 360, a delta of 189.4%.

Q: Does the Core 7 360 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. The 360 wins PassMark find prime numbers (120 versus 106, an 11.7% advantage) and PassMark single-thread (4,274 versus 4,148, a 2.9% advantage).

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 single-core?

A: The 250H scores 1,931 and the 360 scores 1,924, a 0.4% difference favoring the 250H.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The 250H uses Intel's 10 nm process. The 360 uses Intel's 3 nm process.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.