Intel Core 7 251E vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251E and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H occupy distinctly different positions in the database. The Core 7 251E is a desktop part, while the Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor. The recorded benchmark results show that the Core Ultra X7 358H holds a substantial performance advantage across every measured workload. The Core Ultra X7 358H posts an average benchmark score of 40,967, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 251E has no individual benchmark scores recorded in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero, with a percentile rank of 50.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The Core Ultra X7 358H is designed for mobile systems, indicated by its BGA 2540 socket and 25 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is critical. Its benchmark results confirm it is a capable performer in both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. The Core 7 251E, with its 65 W TDP and Intel Socket 1700, is a desktop processor intended for full-sized systems with dedicated cooling. The lack of recorded benchmark data for the Core 7 251E means the database cannot quantify its performance directly, but its architectural specifications suggest it is positioned for desktop workloads that benefit from high core counts and high boost clocks.

The Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear winner in every benchmark category where data exists. It shows strength in single-core performance with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,080 and a Passmark single-thread score of 4,124. Multi-core performance is equally strong, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,747 and a Passmark multi-thread score of 33,802. Specialized workloads also favor the Core Ultra X7 358H, including data compression (332,508 in Passmark), data encryption (26,046), and extended instructions (27,274). The floating-point math score of 103,842 and integer math score of 83,147 further reinforce its dominance in compute-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying architectures. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, part of the Core 7 generation, and is built on a 10 nm process node. Its die size is 257 mm². The Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename, belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process node. The process node difference is substantial: 10 nm versus 3 nm, which directly impacts transistor density and power efficiency.

The core configurations are notably different. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, a hybrid arrangement that includes performance and efficiency cores. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no hyper-threading, resulting in a one-to-one thread-to-core ratio. The cache hierarchies also differ. The Core 7 251E features 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches in the Core Ultra X7 358H suggest a design optimized for lower latency access to frequently used data, while the Core 7 251E compensates with a larger total L3 cache.

Memory support is another key differentiator. The Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. The higher bandwidth of the mobile part indicates a focus on memory-intensive workloads, despite its lower TDP.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Core 7 251E includes UHD Graphics 770, while the Core Ultra X7 358H includes the Arc B390. The PCIe configurations also vary: the Core 7 251E offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Core Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with only 4 CPU-only lanes. The desktop processor provides more expansion headroom, while the mobile part is constrained by its physical form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 251E supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E is built on a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is built on a 3 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H supports LPDDR5X memory.

Q: What is the release date for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E was released on 2025-01-12, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H was released on 2026-01-04.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock of the Core 7 251E is 2.10 GHz, compared to 1.90 GHz for the Core Ultra X7 358H. The boost clock favors the Core 7 251E at 5.60 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

The TDP is a major divergence: the Core 7 251E draws 65 W, while the Core Ultra X7 358H draws only 25 W. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1700 for the desktop part, Intel BGA 2540 for the mobile part. The process nodes differ, as noted, with 10 nm for the Core 7 251E and 3 nm for the Core Ultra X7 358H.

Cache allocations are different in every level. The Core 7 251E has 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra X7 358H has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Core Ultra X7 358H at 153.6 GB/s, compared to 89.6 GB/s for the Core 7 251E.

ECC support is exclusive to the Core 7 251E. Memory types differ: DDR4 and DDR5 for the desktop part, LPDDR5X for the mobile part. The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 770 versus Arc B390. PCIe lane counts differ: 16 CPU-only lanes versus 4 CPU-only lanes, both Gen 5. The Core 7 251E has a launch MSRP of $384, while the Core Ultra X7 358H has no launch MSRP recorded. The production status for both is Active. The Core 7 251E uses the part number SRQDUQ657, and the Core Ultra X7 358H uses SA4RAQ9ET.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark section in the database contains no direct comparison entries. However, the Core Ultra X7 358H has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the Core 7 251E has none. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible for the desktop part. The available data allows for analysis of the Core Ultra X7 358H's performance in absolute terms.

The Core Ultra X7 358H scores 18,747 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,080 in Cinebench R23 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 12,011 multi-core and 1,695 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 3,027 multi-core and 301.5 single-core. These scores indicate a strong balance between multi-threaded and single-threaded performance.

In Passmark tests, the Core Ultra X7 358H shows 33,802 in multi-thread, 4,124 in single-thread, 332,508 in data compression, 26,046 in data encryption, 27,274 in extended instructions, 337 in find prime numbers, 103,842 in floating-point math, 83,147 in integer math, 3,021 in physics, and 40,357 in random string sorting. The floating-point math score is particularly high, indicating robust mathematical processing capability.

The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra X7 358H provide context for its performance. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has an average score of 41,208, which is 0.6% higher than the Core Ultra X7 358H. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41,215, also 0.6% higher. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G scores 40,718, which is 0.6% lower. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41,263, which is 0.7% higher. These deltas show the Core Ultra X7 358H sits in a tight competitive cluster, with all rivals within roughly one percent of its score.

The Core 7 251E has no benchmark entries, so its head-to-head performance cannot be assessed from the database. Its percentile rank of 50 versus the Core Ultra X7 358H's percentile rank of 87 suggests the mobile part is positioned significantly higher in overall CPU performance among all tracked processors.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors by market segment and performance tier. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the higher-performing part, with an average benchmark score of 40,967 and an 87th percentile ranking. Its benchmark results are comprehensive and show consistent strength across single-core, multi-core, and specialized workloads. The 3 nm process node, higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches contribute to its efficiency and performance. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, are all within 0.7% of its average score, placing it in a highly competitive mobile segment.

The Intel Core 7 251E is a desktop processor with a higher core count (24 cores, 32 threads), a higher boost clock (5.60 GHz), and a larger shared L3 cache (36 MB). It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, includes ECC support, and has a launch MSRP of $384. However, the database contains no benchmark scores for this part, so its real-world performance cannot be quantified. Its 50th percentile rank, based on no recorded benchmarks, does not reflect measured performance.

For users selecting between these two, the decision depends on the form factor and workload. The Core Ultra X7 358H is the obvious choice for mobile systems, offering high performance in a 25 W envelope with leading-edge 3 nm fabrication. The Core 7 251E is the desktop option, with more cores and a higher clock ceiling, but its performance remains unverified in the database. The data supports the Core Ultra X7 358H as the stronger performer where measurements exist. The Core 7 251E cannot be recommended on the basis of benchmark evidence, as none is recorded. The database records no wins for either processor in head-to-head benchmarks, but the presence of full benchmark data for the Core Ultra X7 358H and its absence for the Core 7 251E makes the mobile part the only one with a verifiable performance profile.