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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a strikingly one-sided comparison. Across every benchmark in the database, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H outperforms the Intel Core 7 360. The Core Ultra 5 235H wins all 17 head-to-head tests, while the Core 7 360 records zero victories. The margin of victory, however, varies significantly depending on the workload.

The most dramatic differences appear in multi-threaded and heavily parallel workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 25,598 against the Core 7 360's 13,634, a deficit of 46.7 percent for the latter. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells a similar story: 10,751 versus 5,726, again a 46.7 percent gap. The PassMark integer math test shows the widest spread, with the Core Ultra 5 235H posting 74,247 compared to 34,238, a 53.9 percent advantage. Data compression results are nearly as lopsided: 301,979 versus 142,877, a 52.7 percent difference.

Floating-point math and encryption workloads also favor the Core Ultra 5 235H decisively. The floating-point score of 93,509 versus 44,963 represents a 51.9 percent lead. Data encryption shows 23,121 versus 11,164, a 51.7 percent margin. Random string sorting, another memory-intensive operation, delivers 36,208 versus 17,636, a 51.3 percent gap. Extended instructions testing produces 23,354 versus 12,390, a 46.9 percent difference.

Prime number finding, a test sensitive to both core count and memory latency, shows the Core Ultra 5 235H at 239 versus 120, a 49.8 percent advantage. The multithread PassMark score of 30,091 versus 15,544 puts the Core 7 360 behind by 48.3 percent. Physics simulation in PassMark, which often scales with thread availability, records 1,985 versus 1,213, a 38.9 percent gap, the smallest multi-threaded delta in the set.

Single-threaded results narrow the gap considerably but still favor the Core Ultra 5 235H. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 3,613 versus 1,924, a 46.7 percent difference. Cinebench R20 single-core records 1,517 versus 808, also 46.7 percent. Cinebench R15 single-core gives 364 versus 193, a 47 percent margin. The PassMark single-thread test, however, tells a different story: 4,359 versus 4,274, a mere 1.9 percent difference. This near-parity in single-thread PassMark suggests the two processors have comparable per-thread capability in certain workloads, despite the large gaps elsewhere.

The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 235H is 37,522, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 7 360 averages 18,374, landing in the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Core Ultra 5 235H include the Intel Core i9-13900HK with an average score of 37,425 (0.3 percent lower), the Intel Core i5-13600K at 37,685 (0.4 percent higher), the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F at 37,313 (0.6 percent lower), and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 at 37,762 (0.6 percent higher). The Core 7 360 sits closest to the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18,380 (0 percent delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345 (0.2 percent higher), the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318 (0.3 percent higher), and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18,302 (0.4 percent higher). These rival placements confirm that the Core Ultra 5 235H operates in a substantially higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying designs. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The Core Ultra 5 235H, meanwhile, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It also uses a 3 nm node, but fabricated by TSMC rather than Intel.

Core and thread counts present the most obvious architectural split. The Core 7 360 offers 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading or equivalent. The Core Ultra 5 235H provides 14 cores and 14 threads, also without extra threads per core. The 8-core difference explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark gap. Clock speeds also differ: the Core 7 360 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the Core Ultra 5 235H runs at 2.40 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The higher base clock of the Core Ultra 5 235H contributes to its sustained workload advantage.

Cache hierarchies differ in capacity but share the same per-core L1 size of 192 KB. The Core 7 360 has 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 235H has 3 MB of L2 per core and 18 MB of shared L3. The triple L3 capacity on the Core Ultra 5 235H likely aids memory-heavy tasks such as data compression and random string sorting. Memory support is identical in type, both accepting DDR5 and LPDDR5X. However, the memory bus differs: the Core 7 360 operates single-channel with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Core Ultra 5 235H runs dual-channel at 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage compounds the cache edge in bandwidth-sensitive benchmarks.

PCIe capabilities also separate the two. The Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The Core Ultra 5 235H offers Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only), doubling the lane count and generational throughput. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Core 7 360 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores, while the Core Ultra 5 235H features Arc Graphics 140T. Both target the mobile segment and are listed as Active in production status. Sockets differ, with the Core 7 360 on Intel BGA 1516 and the Core Ultra 5 235H on Intel BGA 2049. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 235H has a higher TDP of 28 watts versus 15 watts for the Core 7 360, reflecting its larger core count and higher clocks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 7 360 records zero wins in the database.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 235H scores 25,598 versus 13,634 for the Core 7 360, a 46.7 percent deficit. PassMark multithread shows 30,091 versus 15,544, a 48.3 percent gap.

Q: Is the single-threaded performance difference equally large?

A: No. The PassMark single-thread test shows only a 1.9 percent difference, with scores of 4,359 for the Core Ultra 5 235H and 4,274 for the Core 7 360. Cinebench single-core tests, however, show larger gaps around 46.7 to 47 percent.

Q: What explains the large multi-threaded advantage?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores versus 6 cores for the Core 7 360, with both lacking simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 235H also has 18 MB of shared L3 versus 6 MB, and dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s versus single-channel at 59.7 GB/s.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235H has an average benchmark score of 37,522, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 360 averages 18,374, putting it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core Ultra 5 235H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Core 7 360 boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 235H also has a higher base clock at 2.40 GHz versus 1.50 GHz.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Both use a 3 nm process node. The Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 235H is fabricated by TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every key specification category. Core count varies from 6 on the Core 7 360 to 14 on the Core Ultra 5 235H. Thread counts match core counts, 6 and 14 respectively, with neither using multithreading. Base clocks differ substantially: 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with 4.80 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP ratings separate them at 15 watts versus 28 watts.

Socket types differ, with Intel BGA 1516 on the Core 7 360 and Intel BGA 2049 on the Core Ultra 5 235H. The architecture field shows Wildcat Lake for the Core 7 360 and Arrow Lake for the Core Ultra 5 235H, with matching codenames of Wildcat Lake and Arrow Lake-H. Generation labels also differ: Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) versus Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake-H). The foundry differs as noted, Intel versus TSMC.

Cache capacities diverge at the L2 and L3 levels. The L1 cache is identical at 192 KB per core. The L2 cache is 2.5 MB per core on the Core 7 360 and 3 MB per core on the Core Ultra 5 235H. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory bus width differs: single-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth measures 59.7 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. PCIe support differs, with Gen 4 and 6 lanes on the Core 7 360 versus Gen 5 and 8 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 235H. Integrated graphics differ: Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) versus Arc Graphics 140T.

Release dates show the Core Ultra 5 235H launched on 2025-01-12, while the Core 7 360 launched on 2026-04-15. The part numbers differ, with SAE3E for the Core 7 360 and SRQAP for the Core Ultra 5 235H. Launch MSRP appears only for the Core 7 360 at $426; the Core Ultra 5 235H has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are locked, both lack ECC support, and both fall under the mobile market segment. Production status is Active for both.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data yields no categories where the Intel Core 7 360 takes a lead. The Core Ultra 5 235H dominates every recorded workload. Still, the size of the advantage varies by workload type, which indicates where the Core 7 360 comes closest to competitive.

The narrowest margin appears in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Core Ultra 5 235H leads by only 1.9 percent. This suggests that for lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the Core 7 360 is nearly on par. Applications that depend heavily on a single core's raw speed, such as certain legacy software or basic responsiveness tasks, would see minimal difference between the two.

The physics simulation test shows the smallest multi-threaded gap at 38.9 percent. This workload may rely more on per-core efficiency and less on raw core count or memory bandwidth. The Core 7 360's Wildcat Lake design with a 4.80 GHz boost clock keeps it closer in this specific scenario.

Every other benchmark shows the Core Ultra 5 235H ahead by at least 46.7 percent. The largest gaps occur in integer math (53.9 percent), data compression (52.7 percent), and floating-point math (51.9 percent). These workloads scale strongly with core count, cache capacity, and memory bandwidth, all of which favor the Core Ultra 5 235H. The 14-core configuration with 18 MB of L3 and dual-channel 102.4 GB/s memory overwhelms the 6-core, 6 MB L3, single-channel 59.7 GB/s setup of the Core 7 360.

Data encryption shows a 51.7 percent gap, and random string sorting a 51.3 percent gap. These memory-intensive and parallel-heavy operations clearly benefit from the Core Ultra 5 235H's architecture. The extended instructions test, with a 46.9 percent gap, and the prime number test, with a 49.8 percent gap, follow the same pattern.

The Cinebench suite, both multi-core and single-core variants, consistently shows a 46.7 to 47 percent difference. This consistency indicates that the Cinebench workloads amplify the architectural disparity evenly across thread counts. The Core 7 360 cannot compensate with its higher per-core clock in these tests.

The Verdict

The database measurements draw a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is the superior processor for virtually all recorded workloads. It wins every head-to-head benchmark, holds an 85th percentile rank versus 72nd for the Core 7 360, and averages more than double the benchmark score, 37,522 versus 18,374.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded performance, the Core Ultra 5 235H is the only choice among these two. Its 14 cores, 18 MB of shared L3, and dual-channel memory at 102.4 GB/s deliver massive advantages in compression, encryption, math, and rendering workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25,598 versus 13,634 exemplifies this dominance.

For users whose workloads are predominantly single-threaded, the decision is less clear-cut. The PassMark single-thread test shows the Core Ultra 5 235H leading by only 1.9 percent, which is nearly negligible in real-world terms. However, Cinebench single-core tests still show a 46.7 percent gap, suggesting that the single-thread advantage depends heavily on the specific application.

The Core 7 360 does offer a lower TDP of 15 watts versus 28 watts, which may matter for power-constrained mobile designs. It also has a lower launch MSRP of $426, though the Core Ultra 5 235H has no recorded launch price in the database. Neither processor supports overclocking, and both target mobile platforms.

The release timeline shows the Core Ultra 5 235H launched in early 2025, while the Core 7 360 arrived in 2026. The newer chip does not close the performance gap; in fact, the older chip remains decisively ahead in every metric.

For mobile users who need maximum throughput in compiled workloads, scientific computing, or content creation, the Core Ultra 5 235H delivers approximately double the performance of the Core 7 360 across most tests. The data shows no scenario in which the Core 7 360 takes a win. The 46.7 to 53.9 percent margins in multi-threaded tasks are too large to overcome with any software optimization.

The Core 7 360 sits in a performance class alongside the Intel Core i3-13100 and Core i3-14100, according to nearest rival data. The Core Ultra 5 235H, by contrast, matches the Intel Core i9-13900HK and Core i5-13600K. This tier difference reinforces the benchmark results. The Core Ultra 5 235H is the clear pick for any application where performance matters, while the Core 7 360 may serve only in scenarios where its lower power draw is the primary constraint.