Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

The Intel Core 7 360 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A occupy different corners of the performance spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects a complete sweep for the desktop-oriented chip. The Core Ultra 5 235A wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the smallest margin in single-threaded PassMark tests and the largest in prime number calculations. The Core 7 360, a mobile processor, delivers competitive single-core PassMark performance but falls far behind in every multi-threaded and content-creation workload.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a unilateral distribution of victories. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins every single benchmark in the comparison set, from Cinebench rendering tests to PassMark encryption and compression workloads. Its most decisive advantage appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it outperforms the Core 7 360 by 69.4%. The narrowest gap is in passmark_single_thread, where the Core Ultra 5 235A leads by only 6.2%, indicating that the Core 7 360's single-core architecture holds up reasonably well in isolated tasks.

The Intel Core 7 360 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, its profile as a 15 W mobile part with a 1.50 GHz base clock suggests its purpose is efficiency in compact systems rather than raw throughput. The Core Ultra 5 235A, with a 65 W TDP and a 3.40 GHz base clock, is positioned for desktop workloads where power draw is less constrained. The Core 7 360's PassMark single-thread score of 4274 versus the Core Ultra 5 235A's 4557 shows that for lightly threaded applications, the performance gap is modest, but for any workload that scales across cores, the Core Ultra 5 235A pulls ahead decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 3 nm process node but diverge in nearly every other architectural aspect. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is fabricated by Intel, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and is fabricated by TSMC. The Core Ultra 5 235A integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, whereas the Core 7 360 has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Core counts differ substantially. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor uses simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 235A also has a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz compared to the Core 7 360's 4.80 GHz. Cache hierarchies favor the desktop chip: the Core 7 360 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3, while the Core Ultra 5 235A has 3 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3. Both processors use 192 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support and connectivity also separate the two. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 235A supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe capability differs by a generation: the Core 7 360 uses Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are also distinct, with the Core 7 360 featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) and the Core Ultra 5 235A featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 EU.

The market segments confirm the intended use cases. The Core 7 360 is a mobile processor on the Intel BGA 1516 socket with a TDP of 15 W. The Core Ultra 5 235A is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851 with a TDP of 65 W. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Core 7 360 launched on 2026-04-15 with a launch MSRP of $426, while the Core Ultra 5 235A launched on 2025-07-28 with a launch MSRP of $269.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent pattern of dominance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 3289 against the Core 7 360's 1374, a 58.2% advantage. The single-core R15 test mirrors this: 464 versus 193, also a 58.4% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore delivers 13705 versus 5726, and R20 single-core delivers 1934 versus 808, both at a 58.2% delta. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the largest absolute Cinebench gap: 32633 versus 13634, again 58.2%. R23 single-core follows at 4607 versus 1924.

PassMark workloads reveal where the Core Ultra 5 235A stretches its lead even further. Data compression scores 393800 versus 142877, a 63.7% difference. Data encryption reaches 30136 versus 11164, a 63% gap. Extended instructions score 31625 versus 12390, a 60.8% lead. The largest single delta is in find prime numbers: 392 versus 120, a 69.4% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 235A.

Floating point and integer math also favor the desktop chip heavily. Floating point math scores 118778 versus 44963, a 62.1% gap. Integer math scores 88626 versus 34238, a 61.4% difference. The multithreaded PassMark test shows 38392 versus 15544, a 59.5% lead. Physics scores 2437 versus 1213, a 50.2% gap, the smallest multi-core margin in the set. Random string sorting completes the sweep at 49489 versus 17636, a 64.4% difference. The only close contest is PassMark single-thread, where the Core Ultra 5 235A scores 4557 versus 4274, a 6.2% edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

A: The largest gap is in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the Core Ultra 5 235A leads by 69.4%, scoring 392 against the Core 7 360's 120.

Q: Are these processors made on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 3 nm process node. However, the Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235A is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235A has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The Core 7 360 has 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: What is the smallest benchmark difference recorded?

A: The smallest difference is in the passmark_single_thread test, where the Core Ultra 5 235A leads by 6.2%, scoring 4557 versus 4274.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: No, both the Intel Core 7 360 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A have ECC memory support set to false.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A wins every recorded comparison and sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48201. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 at a 0.1% delta and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX at a -0.2% delta. The Intel Core 7 360, by contrast, sits at the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18374, placing it alongside the Intel Core i3-13100 and Intel Core i3-14100 in overall performance.

The Core Ultra 5 235A is the clear choice for desktop workloads that benefit from its 14 cores, 24 MB of L3 cache, and dual-channel memory bandwidth. Its 65 W TDP and Gen 5 PCIe support with 20 lanes suit a full-size desktop platform. The Core 7 360, with its 15 W TDP, single-channel memory, and mobile socket, is designed for compact and low-power systems. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4274 shows that it can handle basic single-threaded tasks without embarrassment, but in any multi-core or bandwidth-sensitive workload, the Core Ultra 5 235A delivers roughly 2.4 to 3.3 times the performance, depending on the test.

For users selecting between these two, the data points to the Core Ultra 5 235A for any application that demands throughput. The Core 7 360's role is limited to scenarios where its 15 W power envelope and mobile form factor are the primary constraints, and where the performance deficit is acceptable. The recorded numbers do not support any other conclusion.