Intel Core 7 250H vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the Intel Core 7 250H and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, with the newer Panther Lake part winning 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The most decisive margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark floating point math, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 103842 against 65094 for the Core 7 250H, a 37.3% advantage. Extended instructions show a similar gap: 27274 versus 17318, a 36.5% lead. Prime number finding is even more lopsided, with the Core Ultra X7 358H posting 337 against 106, a 68.5% difference.

The Cinebench results follow the same pattern in multi-core tests but with varying intensity. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 12011 versus 9697, a 19.3% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows 18747 versus 16561, an 11.7% advantage. The R15 multi-core result is the exception, where the Core 7 250H wins with 3147 against 3027, a 4% margin. This older test favors the 14-core, 20-thread Raptor Lake design, while newer Cinebench versions favor the 16-core, 16-thread Panther Lake processor.

Single-core results are mixed. The Core Ultra X7 358H leads in all three Cinebench single-core tests: R15 by 1.2% (301.5 versus 298), R20 by 19.3% (1695 versus 1368), and R23 by 7.2% (2080 versus 1931). However, in PassMark single-thread, the Core 7 250H edges ahead with 4148 versus 4124, a 0.6% margin. The PassMark multithread test shows a 20% win for the Core Ultra X7 358H, with 33802 against 27030.

Memory and storage related workloads also favor the Core Ultra X7 358H. Data compression shows 332508 versus 303269, an 8.8% lead. Data encryption is 26046 versus 18206, a 30.1% gap. Random string sorting shows 40357 versus 34136, a 15.4% difference. Physics simulation in PassMark gives the Core Ultra X7 358H a 39.6% advantage, scoring 3021 against 1824.

The Core 7 250H takes four wins total. Beyond the R15 multi-core and PassMark single-thread results, it wins PassMark integer math by a substantial 19.2% margin, scoring 99100 against 83147. This is the only major compute workload where Raptor Lake holds a significant edge. The two identical PassMark single-thread entries (4148 versus 4124) count as separate wins in the head-to-head tally, but both reflect the same underlying measurement.

The aggregate benchmark score reinforces the overall picture. The Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967 across all recorded tests, while the Core 7 250H averages 35728. This places the Core Ultra X7 358H in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 85th percentile for the Core 7 250H. The nearest rivals in each case are closely matched: the Core 7 250H sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 185H, while the Core Ultra X7 358H trades places with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, all within 0.7%.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the stronger processor for most workloads. Its 37.3% lead in floating point math and 36.5% lead in extended instructions suggest a substantial advantage in scientific, financial, and multimedia computation. The 30.1% encryption advantage points to faster handling of security-related workloads, and the 39.6% physics lead indicates better simulation performance. For users whose software relies on Cinebench-style rendering, the R20 and R23 multi-core results show a consistent 11.7% to 19.3% advantage.

The Core 7 250H retains specific strengths. Its 19.2% lead in integer math makes it more suitable for workloads that are integer-bound, such as certain database operations or legacy applications. The R15 multi-core win, while narrow at 4%, shows that some older benchmarks still favor the higher-thread-count design. The PassMark single-thread result is effectively a tie, with a 0.6% difference that falls within measurement noise.

The Core Ultra X7 358H also delivers these advantages at a lower power envelope. Its TDP is 25 watts against 45 watts for the Core 7 250H. The performance per watt picture is therefore strongly in favor of Panther Lake. The Core Ultra X7 358H achieves higher aggregate scores, a higher percentile ranking, and a higher average benchmark score while drawing less power.

The Core 7 250H may still be the practical choice for systems that require DDR4 or DDR5 memory support, as the Core Ultra X7 358H only supports LPDDR5X. The older chip also offers more PCIe lanes from the CPU, with 8 lanes versus 4 lanes. For workloads that depend on integer throughput, the Core 7 250H is the better match.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and different fabrication nodes. The Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H codename, built on a 10 nm process. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename with a 3 nm process node. This node difference is the likely driver behind the Core Ultra X7 358H's power efficiency and many of its performance advantages.

Core counts differ. The Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The thread count is notable: the Core Ultra X7 358H has more physical cores but no hyperthreading, while the Core 7 250H uses hyperthreading to reach 20 threads from 14 cores. Despite having fewer threads, the Core Ultra X7 358H wins most multi-threaded tests, which indicates that its newer cores deliver more work per thread.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Core 7 250H uses 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The per-core cache is larger on Panther Lake, while the total L3 is smaller. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to the Core Ultra X7 358H's single-core Cinebench wins.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Core 7 250H has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database.

PCIe connectivity differs. The Core 7 250H provides Gen 5 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The Core Ultra X7 358H provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. Both use the same PCIe generation, but the Core 7 250H offers twice the lane count.

Integrated graphics differ. The Core 7 250H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The Core Ultra X7 358H uses Arc B390 graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the relative GPU performance cannot be quantified here.

The sockets are different: Intel BGA 1744 for the Core 7 250H and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra X7 358H. These are not interchangeable, so platform choice determines which processor can be used.

Specification Differences

The Core 7 250H has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 358H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core 7 250H runs at higher clocks at both ends of the range, yet loses most single-core benchmarks, which shows that architectural efficiency matters more than raw clock speed in these tests.

The TDP values are 45 watts for the Core 7 250H and 25 watts for the Core Ultra X7 358H. This is a 20 watt difference in the rated power envelope, and the lower TDP part still achieves the higher average benchmark score.

The Core 7 250H has a launch MSRP of $502. The Core Ultra X7 358H has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Core 7 250H is part of the Core 7 generation (Raptor Lake Refresh), while the Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, generation Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H). The Core 7 250H has the part number SRQ6UQ5MK, and the Core Ultra X7 358H has SA4RAQ9ET.

The release dates differ. The Core 7 250H was released on 2024-12-17, while the Core Ultra X7 358H was released on 2026-01-04. Both processors are marked as Active in production status, and both target the mobile market segment. Neither supports ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 250H has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: Why does the Core Ultra X7 358H win most multi-core tests despite having fewer threads?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 physical cores versus 14, and its 3 nm Panther Lake architecture delivers higher per-core throughput. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18747 against 16561 for the Core 7 250H, an 11.7% advantage.

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

A: The largest recorded gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 337 against 106, a 68.5% lead.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: Only the Intel Core 7 250H supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X only.

Q: Which processor is more power efficient?

A: The Core Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Core 7 250H has a TDP of 45 watts. The Core Ultra X7 358H also achieves the higher average benchmark score of 40967 versus 35728.