Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison
Intel Core 7 251E
Core Ultra 7 356H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Intel Core 7 251E and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H occupy different market positions, and the recorded benchmark data confirms a clear performance split. The Core Ultra 7 356H holds 17 benchmark scores across Cinebench and Passmark suites, while the Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of data for the 251E means direct score-to-score comparisons are impossible, but the available measurements for the 356H provide a baseline for understanding its performance tier.
The Core Ultra 7 356H delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18395 and a single-core score of 2040. These results place it in the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 41215. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, scores 41208, a delta of 0 percent, indicating near-identical overall performance. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41263, putting the 356H 0.1 percent behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41376, a 0.4 percent gap, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40967, placing the 356H 0.6 percent ahead.
In Passmark tests, the 356H shows strong floating-point capability with a floating-point math score of 103128. Integer math reaches 83111. Data compression scores 336177, while data encryption hits 26345. Extended instructions score 27898. The multi-thread Passmark score is 33978, and single-thread performance registers 4072. Physics scores 2895, random string sorting reaches 40990, and find prime numbers completes at 327.
The Core 7 251E lacks any benchmark entries, preventing numeric comparison. The database records its percentile as 50, which suggests mid-tier placement, but the absence of average score data means the 251E cannot be positioned against the 356H with recorded deltas. The 356H, by contrast, sits in the upper range of the database distribution, outpacing several established desktop processors in aggregate score.
Where Each One Wins
The Core Ultra 7 356H wins outright in every measurable category because it is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark results. The database shows no scores for the Core 7 251E, so the 356H dominates all Cinebench and Passmark workloads by default. In multi-core rendering, the 356H produces 18395 in Cinebench R23, 12153 in R20, and 3055 in R15. Single-core results are 2040, 1715, and 303 respectively across the same tests.
For compute-heavy tasks, the 356H demonstrates balanced strengths. Floating-point math at 103128 exceeds integer math at 83111, indicating the architecture handles scientific and simulation workloads particularly well. Data compression at 336177 is the highest recorded metric for this processor, suggesting strong performance in archiving and data transfer scenarios. Data encryption at 26345 reflects capable security workload execution. Extended instructions at 27898 indicate solid SIMD and instruction-set extension performance.
The Core 7 251E, with its 24 cores and 32 threads, would likely compete favorably in multi-threaded scenarios based on core count alone, but the database contains no measurements to confirm this. Its 65-watt TDP and desktop orientation suggest sustained performance potential, but without benchmark data, any claims remain speculative. The 356H, with 16 cores and 16 threads, uses a lower 25-watt TDP and targets mobile platforms, prioritizing efficiency alongside performance.
The percentile difference is stark: the 356H ranks in the 87th percentile across all CPUs, while the 251E sits at the 50th percentile. This places the 356H near the top of the database distribution, while the 251E lands in the median range. For users comparing these two, the data unambiguously favors the 356H in every recorded workload.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design generations and manufacturing processes. The Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm². It is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700. The Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process node, and targets mobile systems on Intel BGA 2540.
Core counts differ substantially. The 251E packs 24 cores and 32 threads, while the 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The 251E does not use simultaneous multithreading on all cores, or the thread count would be higher, but the database does not specify the core type breakdown. The 356H matches cores to threads one-to-one.
Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The 251E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The 356H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the 356H suggest higher per-thread cache availability, while the 251E offers double the shared L3, which benefits workloads with large working sets across many threads.
Clock speeds favor the 251E in raw frequency. Its base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The 356H operates at 1.90 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. The 251E's higher boost clock, combined with more cores, gives it theoretical peak frequency advantages. The 356H compensates with a newer process node and higher memory bandwidth.
Memory support differs. The 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and ECC memory support enabled. The 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s but no ECC support. The 356H's bandwidth advantage of 25.6 GB/s over the 251E reflects its newer memory controller design.
PCIe connectivity also varies. The 251E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the 356H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the 251E uses UHD Graphics 770, while the 356H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The 251E has launch MSRP of $384, while the 356H has no recorded launch MSRP.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads.
Q: What is the performance ranking of the Core Ultra 7 356H?
A: The Core Ultra 7 356H ranks in the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 41215. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, scores 41208, a 0 percent delta.
Q: Does the Core 7 251E have any benchmark scores?
A: No. The database records no benchmark scores for the Intel Core 7 251E, so its performance cannot be compared numerically to the Core Ultra 7 356H.
Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?
A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H does not support ECC.
Q: What memory types does each processor support?
A: The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5. The Core Ultra 7 356H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses.
Q: What are the boost clock speeds?
A: The Core 7 251E boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Core Ultra 7 356H boosts to 4.70 GHz.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core 7 251E | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 24 | 16 |
| Threads | 32 | 16 |
| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 1.90 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 4.70 GHz |
| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |
| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel BGA 2540 |
| Codename | Bartlett Lake | Panther Lake |
| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |
| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not recorded |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |
| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |
| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |
| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |
| ECC Memory | Yes | No |
| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |
| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Intel Xe3 Graphics |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |
| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2026-01-04 |
| Launch MSRP | $384 | Not recorded |
| Part Number | SRQDUQ657 | SA4RGQ9EU |
| Percentile | 50 | 87 |
| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 41215 |
The specification table highlights the fundamental design split. The 251E prioritizes core count, clock speed, and desktop expandability with ECC support and 16 PCIe lanes. The 356H prioritizes process efficiency, per-core cache, memory bandwidth, and mobile integration. The 356H's 3 nm process versus the 251E's 10 nm process represents a significant manufacturing generation gap, though the 251E's larger L3 cache and higher boost clock give it advantages in frequency-sensitive and large-cache workloads. The 356H's 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the 251E's 89.6 GB/s by 25.6 GB/s, a meaningful margin for memory-bound applications. Both processors are currently active in production, with the 251E releasing on 2025-01-12 and the 356H on 2026-01-04.