Intel Core 7 360 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 7 360. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Core 7 360 lands in the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 66855, compared to 18374 for the Core 7 360, a gap that reflects fundamentally different market positions.

The Core 7 360 is a mobile processor with a 15 TDP, built for low-power systems. Its benchmark results place it near the Intel Core i3-13100, which scores 18380, a 0% delta, and the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345, a 0.2% delta. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (a -0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon 6515P at 67006 (a -0.2% delta). The data indicates the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs in a performance tier that the Core 7 360 cannot approach.

For users requiring heavy multi-threaded throughput, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the only rational choice. For a compact, power-lean mobile system where single-thread responsiveness matters more than raw throughput, the Core 7 360 remains functional, but the benchmark data shows its single-core scores also trail the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by double digits. The verdict is straightforward: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates in every measured workload category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the 3 nm process node, but they diverge sharply in nearly every other architectural dimension. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename and belongs to the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation. The Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, whereas the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

Core counts separate them decisively. The Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyperthreading. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Core 7 360 operates with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus runs at a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also draws 125 TDP against the Core 7 360's 15 TDP, explaining the performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both processors use 192 KB of L1 per core. The Core 7 360 carries 2.5 MB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 3 MB of L2 per core and 30 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also reports 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, figures absent for the Core 7 360.

Memory support diverges as well. The Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports only DDR5 but over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also supports ECC memory, which the Core 7 360 does not. PCIe connectivity differs: the Core 7 360 offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics differ too, with the Core 7 360 using Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) and the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier; the Core 7 360 does not. Sockets differ as well: the Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Intel Socket 1851.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every recorded benchmark, but the margins vary considerably. The smallest gap appears in single-threaded workloads. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4757 against 4274 for the Core 7 360, a 10.2% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 14.9% lead, with scores of 2261 versus 1924. These figures indicate that even in lightly threaded tasks, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus maintains a clear edge, though not an overwhelming one.

The multi-threaded results tell a different story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 against 13634, a 55.8% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows an even larger gap: 18442 versus 5726, a 69% deficit for the Core 7 360. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same pattern, with 4640 versus 1374, a 70.4% margin. The 18-core configuration of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers massive parallel throughput that the 6-core Core 7 360 cannot match.

PassMark workloads amplify the disparity further. Data compression favors the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 74.9%, scoring 568721 against 142877. Data encryption shows a 73.5% gap, with 42144 versus 11164. Extended instructions produce a 72.2% delta, with 44565 versus 12390. Find prime numbers yields the largest relative gap at 75.3%, with scores of 486 versus 120. Floating-point math gives a 72.4% advantage, 162692 versus 44963. Integer math follows at 72.6%, with 125091 versus 34238. Random string sorting shows a 74.5% gap, with 69090 versus 17636. The PassMark multithread score favors the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by 69.9%, 51596 versus 15544. Physics simulation shows a 65.3% margin, 3494 versus 1213.

The largest single benchmark margin belongs to find prime numbers at 75.3%, while the smallest is PassMark single-thread at 10.2%. The data shows that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus does not merely win; it wins by a wide margin in every multi-threaded and math-heavy workload, and it wins by a meaningful margin even in single-threaded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 360 boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are manufactured on a 3 nm process node, but the Core 7 360 is fabricated by Intel, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 360 does not.

Q: How do their single-core Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 2261, which is 14.9% higher than the Intel Core 7 360's 1924.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel bus, while the Intel Core 7 360 has 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is not about which processor wins a given workload; it is about which processor is appropriate for which environment. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor with an unlocked multiplier, Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, and a 125 TDP. It delivers 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and dual-channel DDR5 with ECC support. The data shows it is suited for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and any workload that scales across many cores. Its average benchmark score of 66855 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, meaning it competes with server-class parts like the AMD EPYC 4465P and the Intel Xeon 6515P.

The Intel Core 7 360, with its 15 TDP, is a mobile processor designed for power-constrained systems. It uses a BGA socket, which means it is soldered to the motherboard. Its 6 cores and 6 threads are sufficient for basic productivity, and its single-core scores, while lower than the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, are not catastrophically behind. The Core 7 360 scores 4274 in PassMark single-thread against 4757 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, a 10.2% gap. That is a modest difference for tasks that rely on a single thread. The Core 7 360 also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in low-power mobile systems, and its integrated Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe units may suffice for light visual tasks.

The data indicates that the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the choice for high-throughput desktop workloads, especially those that benefit from many cores, wide memory bandwidth, and ECC reliability. The Core 7 360 is the choice for mobile systems where power draw of 15 TDP is critical and where the workload is primarily single-threaded or light multi-threaded. Neither processor wins in the other's domain: the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus cannot be dropped into a BGA 1516 laptop socket, and the Core 7 360 cannot approach the multi-threaded scores of the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in any recorded test. The benchmark data is unambiguous: if performance is the sole criterion, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins outright. If portability and power efficiency are the criteria, the Core 7 360 exists to serve that niche, but with a 72nd percentile ranking and an average score of 18374, it is not a performance part by any measure.